* Grave-Misconduct

Judge dismisses Apache suit against Skull and Bones 

By Nora Caplan-Bricker
Staff Reporter

Montgomery Burns of The Simpsons: the most famous Yale Skull and Bonesman

The Yale Daily News

Geronimo's Grave

Two future U.S. Presidents and a Grave Robber (?) and wives

Published Monday, August 9, 2010

It looks like the public will not be learning any times soon whether the secret society Skull and Bones keeps an Apache warrior's skull in its tomb.

A District of Columbia judge on July 27 dismissed a case that had been brought against the mysterious society, as well as the University and senior members of the U.S. government, in February 2009. The plaintiffs are 20 descendants of the legendary Native American chieftain Geronimo hoping to reclaim their...

#1 By Long live the lawyer 5:44a.m. on August 10, 2010

Ramsey Clark fought for the Kent State issue 40 years ago and is still going strong. Long live the lawyer!

PK
M.Div.'80

#2 By I know it's summer... 12:24p.m. on August 10, 2010

...but come on:
Slobodan Milošević

#3 By Coit 2:23p.m. on August 10, 2010

Keys has it.

#4 By Pasta Keane 8:58p.m. on August 11, 2010

Ahhhh the long hibernation is over. I look forward to waking up to some nice AntiPasta

#5 By radical civil libertarian? 6:42a.m. on August 13, 2010

shadowpress.org ends a long piece on Ramsey Clark with the following question. (Can they actually believe in a conspiritorial view of history? Maybe he's just a radical civil libertarian.)

PK
M.Div.'80

"What is Ramsey Clark: dupe, kook or spook? Has a well-intentioned but none-too-bright Clark been duped by the WWP cadre? Or has his reasoning become unhinged for reasons of personal psychology? Or, is he a deep-cover spook, whose real Devil's pact is with sinister elements of the US intelligence community, his mission to divide and discredit any resistance to Washington's war moves?

You decide." shadowpress.org

#6 By Y10 6:47p.m. on August 13, 2010

@Coit: says who?

#7 By aaron 10:24p.m. on August 13, 2010

let me get my thoughts together and write my response. never in my life have i felt the need to respond to something as to what i feel. what has happened to this country? being half native american, this is clearly a mistake.

#8 By @6 6:20a.m. on August 15, 2010

Maybe Scroll and Key, another secret society.

#9 By mark albino 11:38a.m. on August 16, 2010

What is wrong with this country! Native American Indian or not he was still an American and a human being. No one has the right to own someones remains. They should be returned to the family for proper burial! I guess because it is Yale and the people there think they are privileged and entitled they can do anything they want. The judge is wrong and should do the right thing and force skull and bones to return Geronimo's remains back to his family! If not, then his family has the same right to desecrate not only the judges family remains but the Bush family and all those involved as well. Maybe after this their feelings of entitlement will change!

#10 By Wag 12:17p.m. on August 16, 2010

Is the judge who made this ruling a member of this "secret" society? Just wondering...

#11 By Grave-Misconduct 9:00p.m. on August 16, 2010

@ #9

The white man's religion hasn't done much better: their own God's body was stolen from its tomb at the Garden at Calvary; grave robbery extends as far down the centuries as Dickens's Jerry Cruncher in A Tale of Two Cities.

And grave-misconduct with the remains of the dead has its most shocking example right into this very year of 2010 with the mislabelling and downright loss of thousands of soldiers' bodies at Arlington National Cemetery.

The members of Skull and Bones would treat the remains of Yale's BULLDOG with more respect than they have bragged about treating the skull of Geronimo.

And this is considered to be the legendary(but historical) Yale practical joke of the grandfather of TWO Presidents of the United States!?

We steal the Indian's land; we exterminate his people; we rob his graves; and then we send our children to Yale to learn how to trivialize these events.

Proud to be an American.

PK



#12 By Correction 9:33p.m. on August 16, 2010

PS
I should have said "grandfather and father of TWO Presidents of the United States" not "the grandfather of TWO Presidents of the United States". (Even that correction sounds odd, as if he fathered TWO and grandfathered TWO. Oh well, the limits of language.)
PK

#13 By med '10 3:09a.m. on August 17, 2010

And Yale Medical students used to steal the bodies of New Haven citizens to practice upon. Is PK going to get on his high horse over that? If you hate Yale so much, why do you continually post nonsense here? Really, go bother Harvard or something.


#14 By Ghoulish 1:21p.m. on August 17, 2010

@ Yale Med '10

Many of my relatives, descended from my great grandmother five removed, who was a Pequot squaw, have been buried in New Haven or nearby over the last century, so I am certainly willing to get on my high horse about Yale med students stealing New Haven bodies for research.

Ghoulish.

(Like drinking out of Geronimo's skull).

And BTW, no one FORCES you or anyone else to read my posts. If you and Yale are "bothered" by them, the "bother" is self-imposed.

Just ignore them.

I hope if anyone with my name ever comes under your care -- or knife --that you will be professional and put your "botheredness" aside.

Solzhenitsyn's motto is on the masthead of my blog, The Anti-Yale: ("Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Proverbs 27:6.)

I don’t hate Yale:I hate Yale’s self-intoxication ( much as a son hates not his mother but her alcoholism).

PK
M.Div. ‘80



#15 By Easy 1:43p.m. on August 18, 2010

You know what would get a real investigation done quickly?

Protests here on the campus.


#16 By Invite 5:44p.m. on August 18, 2010

How about inviting the descendants of Geronimo to campus to request the skull in person?

PK


#17 By AC 12:19a.m. on August 19, 2010

There's absolutely no way that any judge is going to rule in favor of the Native Americans. Their case is based on a LEGEND. They don't have any proof whatsoever. The words "innocent until proven guilty" come to mind. Ridiculous.

Ramsey isn't a kook, he's just taking these Apaches for the proverbial ride. I bet he's loving raking in his hefty retainer!

#18 By Pro Bono 6:24a.m. on August 19, 2010

@ 17

Stop speculating and paste this url into your browser search window and watch Ramsey Clark speak about the case himself on this Youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94KVMAFWEY

You don't understand civil libertarians if you think he's getting a big fat fee. Just type in a google search for "ramsey clark pro bono" and see what comes up.

PK

#19 By Y2010 7:44a.m. on August 19, 2010

I would be upset by this ruling if I believed Skull and Bones actually had the skull.

They don't have it.


#20 By What was going on at Yale 100 years ago! 12:38p.m. on August 20,
2010

Let me get this straight.

In the same list of contents for this YDS on-line edition I see that on the hundredth anniversary of Geronimo's death (Feb. 17, 2009) a Yale secret society is being sued for recovery of Geronimo's grave-robbed skull; and on the hundredth
anniversary of Yale Professor Bingham's discovery of the treasures at Machu Picchu Yale itself is being sued for recovery of those Inca artifacts.

What was going on at Yale 100 years ago that made Yalie's (both undergraduate and faculty) think it was OK to steal?

Could it be that people of red and brown skin were not seen as human and therefore not embraced by the long WHITE Judeo-Christian arm of the Ten Commandments?

Ironic since the authors of the Decalogue ( the Ten Commandments) had browner skin than Obama.

Give the skull back. Give the artifacts back. And maybe Yale should give whatever buildings were built by slaves back. (But to whom?)

In any of these three instances, has any spokesperson thought of simply offering a sincere apology?

Oh, an apology suggests guilt.

Can't do that.

PK



#21 By Y10 12:36p.m. on August 21, 2010

There are actually a lot of bones in Skull and Bones. Maybe they just can't keep track, you know.

Scroll and Key's not that big on bones-- they're much more into intellectually ethereal stuff, so I doubt they have it.

#22 By Yalie 4:19p.m. on August 21, 2010

@ PK

Take a bit of your own advice and stop speculating yourself. You're wasting your time crying for the return of items which have not even been shown to be stolen in the first place.

Maybe you should start asking Santa to give back all of those milk and cookies while you're at it?

#23 By Santa under oath 5:12p.m. on August 21, 2010

The point of Ramsey Clark's suit is to compel testimony under oath. Then the speculating stops. Even Santa tells the truth under oath: No, Virginia.

PK


#24 By Yalie 3:05p.m. on August 23, 2010

Oh yes! I've heard that even O.J. Simpson tells the truth under oath.

#25 By Cross-examined 6:23a.m. on August 24, 2010

@ 24

CROSS-EXAMINED under oath.

PK

* McChrystal Blue

Old Blue Eyes

McChrystal to teach graduate-level seminar


By Nora Caplan-Bricker
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Monday, August 16, 2010

Retired four-star Gen. Stanley McChrystal, dismissed in June from his post in Afghanistan, is coming to teach at Yale this school year.

McChrystal, who was relieved of his duty after he and his staff insulted top White House officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article, served in the military for 34 years and was chosen to command U.S. Forces in Afghanistan because of his expertise in counterinsurgency strategy. He will teach a graduate-level seminar in leadership to students studying international relations. Jim Levinsohn, director of the new Jackson Institute for Global Affairs,...

#1 By JP 12:32p.m. on August 16, 2010

Barf!

#2 By ExStr8 1:02p.m. on August 16, 2010

Wow! You think McChrystal is gonna 'fess up about his role in the distortion of the cause(s) of Pat Tillman's death?



Perhaps he and Tony Blair could lead a seminar on dissembling...

#3 By Yale11 1:12p.m. on August 16, 2010

He is a retired four-star General, not a five star.

#4 By A Journalistic Prophylactic on the Pentagon 1:28p.m. on August 16, 2010

I'm all for this appointment. Seriously.



While Obama was correct in dismissing him for defying ["disrespecting"] civilian control of the military, the General, through "Rolling Stone," performed a service to the public in letting us know how haphazard and uncoordinated civilian control of military policy really is.



This cost him his neck and caused Defense Secretary Gates to install a journalistic profylactic on the Pentagon. But Truth was served.



If a Prime Minister who walked lock-step with President Bush in invading Iraq and sending thousands of young men and women to their deaths can teach THEOLOGY at Yale, then a General whose greatest offense was hanging-out the White House's dirty international underwear in public, ought to be able to teach International Leadership at Yale. Of course, he may have signed a prior-agreement not to speak in public on certain issues if he retired with full pomp and honor (which he did). If so, his value at Yale may be pre-gagged.



Just wondering about Yale and other famous resignees.

Was Nixon invited by Yale to teach on Tragic Flaws?

Or how about The Duke of Windsor? Was he invited to teach on Romantic Love(or Fashion)?

Helen Thomas on Middle Eastern Affairs?

And of course, General Mac Arthur. What would he have taught (besides Style)?

Nuclear Border Control in the Third World?



PK
M. Div.'80


#5 By y11 2:30p.m. on August 16, 2010

Awesome. Haters gonna hate, but this is sick.

#6 By Boola '66 2:31p.m. on August 16, 2010

A real coup for Yale. I'd rather Gen. McChrystal was still in uniform and Afghanistan, of course.

#7 By Anonymous 2:59p.m. on August 16, 2010

The man does know leadership better than most as well as being pretty experienced with international relations. He's also played a clear and high-level role in some of the most important conflicts in recent memory.

How is this anything but a great opportunity for students at Yale to learn from someone worth learning from?

#8 By Rush to Judgement 3:13p.m. on August 16, 2010
I wonder if he realizes that he's entering an area more hostile to the US military and it's members than Afghanistan ever could be? What could he possibly think he'll gain from lecturing at Joe Stalin U ? Just the first four comments should be enough to realize he's done before he ever get's to open his mouth.

#9 By Bull Dog 4:12p.m. on August 16, 2010

OK Yalies, in the spirit of academic freedom, don't let Gen. McCrystal off the hook in asking the tough questions in his class. Questions that a sycophantic and star-struck press and government establishment may not feel the need to ask.

Questions on media relations, truth being the first casualty of war, etc.

#10 By Y'12 4:12p.m. on August 16, 2010

Absolutely awesome.

#11 By Mike 4:36p.m. on August 16, 2010

I am quite confident that the good General can more than take care of himself. As noted before, he does have the advantage of experience, as opposed to theory.

#12 By @ #8 4:44p.m. on August 16, 2010
Given the choice between someone shooting their mouth off at me or shooting their AK at me, I'll take someone shooting their mouth off at me any day of the week. I imagine he'll be just fine.

#13 By Done? 5:00p.m. on August 16, 2010 @ 8

"Done"? Not at all. I am serious when I think he will make a valuable contribution to campus debate. But you can't expect that he will be seen in a vacuum. His role as Petraeus's second-in-command in Iraq and his cavalier, macho comments to Rolling Stone won't evaporate simply because he has a Yale lectureship.

PK



#14 By Recent Alum 7:14p.m. on August 16, 2010

Nice to see a true patriot will be teaching at Yale. The double standard shown by the Left in their criticisms of McChrystal is astounding. The man would be seen as a hero by the media, Hollywood and most of the Yale community if he had made similar comments to Rolling Stone during the Bush Presidency.

#15 By @ #14 12:44a.m. on August 17, 2010

Very well said, and very accurate

#16 By @ 14 7:58a.m. on August 17, 2010

Agreed, but I hope that those who criticize are the right are considered just as patriotic.

#17 By George 10:23a.m. on August 17, 2010

A true American hero who has devoted his career to defending freedom. Yale should be congratulated on this appointment.

#18 By Wag 11:09a.m. on August 17, 2010

No one can say that Yale's choices aren't controversial. Keeps life interesting...
Who is next? Abedinijad?

#19 By Carwygyd 11:43a.m. on August 17, 2010

Just wait till he makes the same comments about Richard Levin in the Rumpus.

#20 By ???? 1:29p.m. on August 17, 2010

This is Bizzare. Are they attempting to bribe the unemployed anti-obama, right wing, puppet with a job ? Yale does not need people like this. I think Obama should be given work at Yale.

#21 By ???? 1:31p.m. on August 17, 2010

The man is an anti-obama, self admitted homophobe and we want this guy at Yale ? He needs to reach out more to the GLBTPQ community first.

#22 By @#20, 21 6:35p.m. on August 17, 2010

I'm going to guess you're not a Yalie, so maybe you shouldn't use "we."


#23 By @ #21 6:51p.m. on August 17, 2010

I truly hope you're kidding.

He isn't hear to teach about liberal policies. Or sexual issues. He's coming to teach leadership and international relations, which he has a great deal of experience in.

Yale evidently needs more people like this, if only to expose people like you to the reality that someone can be a good man able to teach people many things while not holding exactly the same beliefs you hold.

#24 By b74 1:28p.m. on August 18, 2010

I am very glad to here he is coming to Yale. He will be great for the students who have the good luck to get in his course.

He may also want to do the other side of the academic experience and take a course regarding primacy of civilian control over the military, and Handling the Press 101. :)
But yes, very glad he is coming.

#25 By j87 3:24p.m. on August 18, 2010

Yale even more than before adores having here people who have been in the headlines. John Negroponte, who was one of the architects of the massacre of peasants deemed left-wing by the U.S. administration, came to teach. Tony Blair showed up every couple of weeks to free-associate on "faith and politics." Etc. If Pinochet were still alive, he would be a logical person to appear in New Haven to participate in the "Grand Strategy" seminar. It is all very sad.

#26 By h99 4:09p.m. on August 18, 2010

Perhaps Gen. McChrystal might invite the parents of the former NFL football player, Pat Tillman, who died in a "friendly fire" episode in Iraq, so he and they could discuss McChrystal's leadership strategy of dissembling and prevarication in trying to hide the cause of Tillman's death because the Army, and McChrystal, feared it would compromise then shaky public support for the Iraq war.

Leadership requires honesty and fortitude, and Gen. McChrystal's public evasions and cowardice in the Tillman death ought to make anyone wonder about his capacity to teach a graduate course on "leadership" at Yale or anywhere.

#27 By @26 6:51p.m. on August 18, 2010

Perhaps he should just teach a small seminar for senior administrators...

#28 By @ #26 8:41p.m. on August 18, 2010

I would have preferred the Army was honest in its original report on Tillman's death but to imply that invalidates his ability to effectively teach on leadership is a severe leap.

It could have been he was ordered to, and while he could have argued that was an unlawful order, it was a pretty inconsequential one compared to the fact that he has soldiers dying every day and a war to fight.

Or maybe his intention, though revealed to be flawed, was to spare the family the horror of friendly-fire taking Pat.

Or possibly he just calculated that, yes, the public opinion would wane sufficiently and that would jeopardize the mission, and consequently would leave many good people in harms way if that mission were prematurely aborted. Would that be so horrifying? On the one hand, emotional pain for the family, yet on the other, many lives at stake?

If you're looking for perfection in a leader, you're going to be looking for a long time.

#29 By Honesty? 8:53p.m. on August 18, 2010

@ # 26

"Leadership requires honesty and fortitude . . ."

Fortitude yes. Honesty---not so sure. Nixon could never have been elected if he campaigned on making friends with "communist China". (They've even made an opera about that!) Reagan almost the same----only "it was "communist USSR". Johnson could NEVER have been elected president to pass civil rights legislation; his ability to do so was made possible through his elevation-by-assassination. In a way, the civil rights laws were cloaked in the sheep's clothing of a memorial to JFK.

So my hunch is honesty is a dubious prerequisite for leadership.

Playing your cards close to your chest is a more liely prerequisite.

PK

#30 By @h99 9:04p.m. on August 18, 2010

Seems he'll do well at Yale, considering the public evasion and cowardice Yale has shown in regards to Muslim threats.

#31 By Harvard and Hauser 4:56p.m. on August 19, 2010

Hello, YDN? I know it's summer, but are you paying attention to the Marc Hauser scandal at Harvard? You would do well to look at his collaborations and do some digging closer to home.

#32 By THE AFGHANISTAN SONG 9:04p.m. on August 19, 2010

AFGHANISTAN!!! AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!

#33 By ? 10:07p.m. on August 20, 2010

What are his academic teaching credentials? I'm not saying he doesn't have any, I'm just wondering whether he's been through something similar to TA positions and the tenure track to learn the ropes of teaching to university students as opposed to military contexts.

#34 By JS McGuire 2:39a.m. on August 21, 2010

Have one of those bright students ask McChrystal about his roll in the Pat Tillman affair, unless of course that is too upsetting for everyone.

#35 By Harvard? 5:17p.m. on August 21, 2010

@ 31

Marc Huaser "science misconduct" at Harvard is right up there with Professor Bingham's Machu Picchu (sp?) misconduct at Yale---just 100 years apart.

PK

#36 By #36 6:38p.m. on August 24, 2010

Idiots on this board think that McCrystal was in charge of American policy rather than executing the policy and leading the military. The man in charge of policy is Obama, who the media and the communists at Yale blindly adore.

#37 By Walking the plank 8:50p.m. on August 24, 2010

@ 36:

The charming thing about McCrystal is that in his final incarnation he WASN'T blindly following the rhetoric of Obama (and certainly not of Biden or Holbrook). He was doing what all good revolutionaries do: subverting from within.

Too bad he outted himself in Rolling Stone. (Freud would have something to say about that.)

He had no choice but to walk the plank after that.

PK

* MYOB : Don't be Stuffy!

Slifka's Ponet '68 officiates Clinton wedding


By Sam Greenberg
Staff Reporter
The Yale Daily News
Published Sunday, August 1, 2010


Updated, August 2, 2010: The Slifka Center’s own Rabbi James Ponet '68 officiated at Chelsea Clinton’s uber-hyped wedding at an estate in Rhinebeck, N.Y., on Saturday, according to multiple news outlets.



The Clinton family tried to keep the details of the event secret from everyone but the hundreds of guests in attendance, who included Ponet, Yale’s Jewish chaplain and director of the Joseph Slifka Center. He was joined by Rev. William Shillady in leading the interfaith ceremony between Clinton, who is Methodist, and her Jewish husband, Marc Mezvinsky.



“It was a...

#1 By Joanna Wurzler 8:04p.m. on August 1, 2010

They look so beautiful and so much in love.

Joanna Wurzler,

Tampa,FL

#2 By Xan Tanner 8:26a.m. on August 2, 2010

They really do. It makes me believe Love is REAL! And Marc really did look handsome.

#3 By Yale 08 9:46a.m. on August 2, 2010

How exactly do you conduct a Jewish-Methodist wedding?

#4 By natalie 11:22a.m. on August 2, 2010

We are all God's children. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds.

#5 By Recent Alum 12:48p.m. on August 2, 2010

An atheist from a Jewish background marries an atheist from a Methodist background in a wedding that makes a mockery of both religious traditions. One wishes that the couple at least had the decency to make this a purely secular wedding... but then again, decency and Clinton have never gone too well together.

#6 By Alum '04 1:47p.m. on August 2, 2010

Rabbi Ponet is great--mazel tov to all.

#7 By Marta 5:41p.m. on August 2, 2010

How come a rabbi desecrates the Shabbat in a public mock-wedding?

There is a sense of decency in reform rabbis in Israel. There are don'ts

They could have a civil and nice ceremony, they could have a Methodist ceremony, but not a Jewish "wedding". Rabbi Ponet has hurt the kavod of the reform movement.

#8 By Really Yale... 6:58p.m. on August 2, 2010

...THIS is news?

#9 By Stuffy 7:55p.m. on August 2, 2010

@ # 5 "makes a mockery of both religious traditions"

Stuffy?
"Religious traditions" were created by human beings, so why can't they be revised or amalgamated by human beings?

PK
M.Div. '80

#10 By Cyndalah 8:19p.m. on August 2, 2010

When I was married over 30 years ago, I was a devout Methodist, marrying into a very Conserva-dox family. I became a Jew by Choice when I was ready to do so on my own terms. What I would like to relay as being in an inter-faith marriage, the couple, not the lives of the parents are the important ones. If these two adults appeased their families, it's on their heads. Somehow they will find the path for their siritual happiness, hopefully with a common religin that will lead them, if and when they plan a family. Having this spiritualness is their business....have they actually proclaimed that they are atheists? It's not fair to judge them on their family's history..they are entitled to their own.



Mozel Tov to the newlyweds! May they have a happy and joyous life together, that's the key to their future. They deserve to have their privacy, although we really want to know how the wedding and festivities went:))When you're Jewish you want to know everything!! Just ask any Jewish Mother-In Law!!

#11 By joerlivstja 10:18p.m. on August 2, 2010

What gives anyone the right to judge or dictate by what traditions people should get married?! Isn't it possible that Chelsea and Marc are deeply in love, but their own religious traditions are also important to them?! They seem to love and respect each other and respect each other's religious traditions. You should try it sometime.

#12 By Yale 08 10:18a.m. on August 3, 2010

@#10- so you were a "devout Methodist" but gave up Jesus to become Jewish? How does that square with Methodism?



@#11- we all have the responsibility to use right reason to judge the prudence of the actions of others. That is what people do in civilized society.



Unless you want to ask for a definition of "is"...

#13 By yale10 10:46a.m. on August 3, 2010

Marta- how dare you assume and jump to conclusions. The ceremony took place early Saturday evening, at the end of Shabbat and was done tastefully and with absolute respect for Jewish traditions. Rabbi Ponet holds his own and his community's Jewish beliefs in high regard and has done them proud.


#14 By YaleAlum 11:16a.m. on August 3, 2010


I am disgusted by those who feel the need to ridicule Rabbi Ponet for giving Marc a Jewish wedding that fit his life and was no doubt meaningful to him. What has made Rabbi Ponet such a successful leader of Yale's Jewish community and doubtlessly is a reason why the Clintons selected him for their wedding is the way he manages to make Judaism relevant and meaningful to people from all types of backgrounds and in different religious situations.





#15 By Slifka Boy 11:52a.m. on August 3, 2010
@#14,

Judaism isn't meant to be "relevant"

The world was already old when the covenant was made.

#16 By Perfect Post 12:43p.m. on August 3, 2010

Many posters here are critical of the groom. The groom, unfortunately, knows very little about his Jewish heritage. He proudly wore his "talit" and a "kippah", and believes that he fuffilled the Jewish requirements. The "Rabbi", however, does know better. Regardless of his own background, he knows that most Reform clergymen, will not perform weddings on Shabbat. Many others, will still not perform an intermarriage.. By lending his imprimatur, he is, in effect, teaching the groom, that his actions are acceptable. So, a 4,000 year old chain is broken.

Shame on you, "Rabbi" Ponet. For a brief moment in the limelight, you've broken our chain. From Avraham to Moses, to King David, Ezra, the Maccabees, through the Roman Exile, Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms, and to the crematoria and back, we've survived as Jews, And now, thanks to you, the Mezvinsky branch of Jews, has reached a dead end. Shame! Shame ! Shame!

#17 By Communist/REALDemocrat 2:27p.m. on August 3, 2010

The only "wedding" they should have had was a certificate from the government (no religion) and there should have been a party open to all Workers ! and no food except that given to them by the glorious government ! Van Jones should have presided over the ceremony as well and there should be a bust of obama, Mao, Lenin and Stalin to watch over the event ! Shame on these burgoise hypocrite hippies. Up the Protelatariat ! Down with DINO clintons wealth !

#18 By Star 4:11p.m. on August 3, 2010

Yale10: Marta was correct & I wondered the same question. Shabbat ended at or after 8:58pm (local time). Numerous reports said that the wedding concluded before the end of Shabbat (including an official email that was sent announcing the conclusion of the wedding and the newly married couple status). Notwithstanding the media reports, one look at the photos of the couple post wedding vows shows sunlight on everyone. If the wedding occurred after sundown plus 1 hour (which is the conclusion of Shabbat), it would have been dark outside.

#19 By cc'09 4:44p.m. on August 3, 2010

lovely ketubah

#20 By WakeUp 6:24p.m. on August 3, 2010

Rabbi Ponet is a great guy, but I'll bet you the service went on so long that Roger Clinton had to call his narc-anon sponsor.

#21 By Steven 7:32a.m. on August 4, 2010

In my opinion as a Jew, I believe that their wedding ceremony and the Rabbi that officiated created a desecration of G-d's name and Judaism. The Reform rabbinical seminary and movement supposedly "sanctifies" and sanctions something that is against the precise wording of the Bible itself from which Judaism's laws directly came from. That the Reform institution approbates and sanctions interfaith marriages is a slap in the face of the Bible and G-d's words to Moses. This is written in the Bible clear as day , that this kind of marriage union is gravely prohibited for Jews and the Bible and its laws to the Jews has been believed to have been given by G-d himself - despite the seemingly widely and falsely believed claim that the Rabbi and they were doing the "right" thing by "Jewish" law.

#22 By Lee Smith 1:31p.m. on August 5, 2010

A further step in the deterioration of rational categories and meaningful differences --- it's the law of entropy in action. It takes energy and motivation to preserve differences such as Judaism and Christianity, but in the absence of effort, things blend together, ice melts, Shabbat becomes just another day, walls tumble, and bland sameness is created that descrates thousands of years of effort to maintain meaningful distinctions. A local "kosher-style" deli had bagels hanging on the Xmas tree one year --- no doubt we will find a similar tree in the Yale Jewish center this December, being decorated merrily by Rabbi Ponet. And while we are at it, lets give yale grads the same salaries as GED recepients, after all -- all is the same and there are no meaningful differences.

#23 By Andi 1:44p.m. on August 5, 2010

As a Jewish women, brought up in a Conservative Synagogue, whose grandparents were orthodox, I find everyone's narrow minded opinion the reason the Jewish people are diminishing in number. We have become intolerant, unforgiving, and judgmental. Is that what G-d wants? Seems to me, that isn't in the Torah anywhere. If we take everything that literally, we all need to sacrifice our eldest son, to see if G-d provides a ram instead. Does everyone leave the 4 corners of their land unharvested to be left for the poor? And do we pay all labor at the end of each day of work? I guess maybe we are all "cafeteria" Jews who do what is convenient for ourselves, and decide what others are supposed to do. I say Mazel Tov to Chelsea and Marc. And let's show the world we are a tolerant people, as we expect others to be. This is 2010. Do we want Judaism to be eradicated by 2020? Let's keep this attitude up and it might be.

#24 By Precise wording @ 2l 4:35p.m. on August 6, 2010

#21 says of the wedding ceremony presided over by Rabbi Ponet: "[it goes]against the precise wording of the Bible itself from which Judaism's laws directly came from.[sic]"

No less an authority than Roland H. Bainton, Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale for 42 years, author of 36 books, including the critically accalimed biography of Luther "Here I Stand" (Abingdon Press), pointed out to me in person in 1980 that Deuteronomy 20 is no less than a proof text for GENOCIDE. (So much for the authority of the Bible and rigid adherence to the text):

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (King James Version)

"16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:


17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:"

Loosen your tie a bit and lighten up.

Paul Keane
M. Div. '80




#25 By Yale 08 11:00a.m. on August 7, 2010

Andi,

The Jewish population diminishes because for most non-Orthodox Jews, their Judaism is synonymous with liberal social views. They aren't reproducing.

When your religion doesn't seek converts, and you don't have babies, then you go away...

#26 By Alum 4:22p.m. on August 8, 2010

@24. Sir: Lighten up yourself. Put aside your simplistic, out-of-context reference to Deuteronomy. A reference to the conquest of Canaan and your distaste for your understanding of it is a much different matter than adherence to basic precepts of the religion regarding the family, such as: marriage; when a "Rabbi" should participate in a marraige ceremony; and the continuation of peoplehood. The continuation of the Jewish people may or may not matter to you or Prof. Bainton. It does matter to some of the readers here.

#27 By Celebrate/Proliferate 11:49a.m. on August 9, 2010

@ # 26

I have no objection to proliferation of the Jewish people or any other people. I have great objection to mindless, rigid adherence to 2000 year old "sacred" texts, whether of the First Testament or The "Second" Testament (as my Jewish friends refer to the "New" Testament, apparently offended by Christianity's limp attempt at one-upsmanship).

Loosen that tie.

Celebrate!

Proliferate!

PK
M.Div. '80



#28 By JE '11 8:50p.m. on August 9, 2010


My parents were married in a secular ceremony because the country they lived in at the time did not permit interfaith marriages. Their marriage has lasted far longer than any of the marriages of my more conservative relations on both sides, and they've produced four good Jewish children.



I suppose many of you wouldn't consider my brothers and I Jewish. But luckily for us, we live in a country with great rabbis like Rabbi Ponet who will allow us to marry as we choose. See you next year in Jerusalem.

#29 By Veritas 2:19a.m. on August 10, 2010

At the end of the day, we're all carbon-based blobs with much less than 1% chemical variation among us, and we're trying to segregate ourselves based on tangential beliefs? We're really arguing against interfaith marriages? This is disappointing coming from anyone, but coming from this country and this school, it's not just disappointing: it's deeply embarrassing.

#30 By Yale 08 12:12p.m. on August 10, 2010

@Veritas,

Your positivism is more frightening.

#31 By #21 12:03p.m. on August 11, 2010

What else is there to expect from some graduates of this great "enlightened" "progressive" institution of higher education. In that process you never actually studied any semblance of actual religious study. You deceive yourself by concocting what you believe is true and aligns with your societally brainwashed beliefs. How about taking some good courses in the various theology departments? Most university educated Americans are completely uneducated about religion anymore - it's looked down on. No "rational" person can believe that this entire natural planet came about as a product of the big bang theory, if people would stop and think for themselves - they wouldn't be as ignorant. I'm signing off as I do not want to continue to invite "brainwashed" ignoramuses to a forum of their ignorant popular dogma. Ignorance and self imposed "feel good" popular values are bliss - I see why this country is in the kind of state that it's in. Basically it's Soddom and Gommorah. I am truly embarrassed to have people like this as citizens, neighbors, and leaders of a country whose founders and legislators were scholarly and deeply religious people at the same time - the founding fathers in today's "enlightened" and "progressive" America would be branded dangerous religion preaching and adhering fanatics.


#32 By Veritas 6:46a.m. on August 13, 2010

@#31 -- We disagree on two main points: 1. that the founding fathers would be considered dangerous and religious (they were, in fact, mostly Deists, which means they accepted the existence of a god and no more) and 2. the definition of "rational".

@Yale 08 -- Perhaps positivism is frightening, but it's useful for gaining perspective. If we're gonna restrict marriages, why not start with the more salient characteristics, like race? Anti-miscegenation laws, anyone?


#33 By A bit more. 11:09a.m. on August 14, 2010

@ 32

Not quite.
PK

de•ism
–noun
1.
belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

the•ism

–noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

#34 By devil05 12:00p.m. on August 16, 2010

How could a Rabbi help officiate a wedding on the Sabbath day? It is against all Jewish law.

#35 By Veritas 2:32a.m. on August 17, 2010

@PK -- Fair. Let me rephrase that, "...which means they accepted the existence of a god but LITTLE more."